If that's the case, then you'll easily be able to describe why this is "in bad taste" without connectiong these guys to terrorists in some way, right?

Quote shortened to the 2 points I want to address. The whole McDonald’s analogy has already been used and I believe the difference has been sufficiently explained. If the terrorists were killing people in the name of McDonalds and for the glory of the golden arches (eerie…) then it would be valid. Then I would also say I understand people being upset at a new McDonalds built at ground 0 and you would say of the 20 billion burgers served only 10,000 of them were eaten by terrorists, don’t punish the other 19,990,000 innocent burger loving patrons. Unfortunately for your example, Al Qaeda routinely uses Islam as its reasoning and not fast food eating habits.

For the second point, there have been multiple examples of sound reasoning made by “slightly” more intelligent posters. The 2nd half of the 1st page of this thread is full of them, just go back and read them. I’d say the overall discussion in that area highlights both sides, and whatever your particular views are on this topic, that discussion illustrates both sides well. I don’t agree with all of Rugen’s points there for example, but they are well thought out and I understand where he is coming from. The part of this that actually got me posting again (even though I’ve already explained my position clearly much earlier) is people dismissing other people’s feelings in a casual “You’re just wrong” approach. Considering the events and the trauma many went through I wouldn’t say anyone’s feelings are wrong, regardless of what they were. That’s what makes them feelings, and those are what are involved in deciding if something is in good taste. Feelings dictate if it is in poor taste, logic dictates if it is lawful. Show some empathy.

See, you just can't do it.

You just can't find a way to say that this is "in bad taste" without just coming out and making the muslim/terrorist connection.

There's absolutely nothing at all that these people are doing that could be taken as being in poor taste other than existing. Not a single thing. Their only crime against taste is the fact that they're existing as muslims in a place where people cannot properly differentiate between muslims and terrorists, whether consciously or not.

All the comparisons thus far have been exceedingly weak. Gingrich's nonsense about Nazi's, someone else talking about a white guy in a racist shirt, nonsense like that. The only way those comparisons could even come close would be if they - like I said before - put up pictures of the WTC in their front window at the mosque or something.

But, and I'll say this again, just existing in a place that's sort of but not really close to a place where something bad happened that they had nothing to do with? Yeah, find a way to call that bad taste without making a connection that's not there.

Bov-
I have never said it had nothing to do with the connection terrorists have to Islam. This entire thing is about how people feel a connection of the terrorists to Islam. What I have said it has nothing to do with the connection Islam has to terrorists. I really do understand 99.9% of Muslims are not terrorists. Can you not see the difference between the statements “Terrorists kill in the name of Islam and that makes some people uncomfortable with promoting Islam on the site of a terrorist attack” and “All Muslims are terrorists”? I am not even personally offended by a mosque. I do understand how people could be bothered by it and still not be hateful people though. That is what seems to elude you...the ability to understand how someone besides yourself might feel. I don't think I can dumb it down any further.

I do understand how other people feel, but that doesn't mean that something that someone else does is in bad taste just because there are sensitive people in a major city.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. They'd have to actually DO something before you can say it's in bad taste. But just wanting to live there? Worship there? Exist there? That's not in bad taste no matter how you spin it. It's just not. People have to learn to live with their feelings.

I'll start with your response to the second point as it pertains to the thread...



I was there asking the same question on those pages, and never got a reasonable answer as to precisely what constitutes the correlation between Islam and the terrorists such that it is in poor taste. No examples were given, and after reading through it briefly again, the post you made suggesting motivation is a key component is one of the first actual "reasons" suggested that it's in poor taste or that there's a connection given in the entire thread(beyond the simplistic "cuz they were Muslims" with no connection given).

You can merely label it all feeling and subjective and simply walk away without giving an explanation, but if you actually want people to take you seriously then some sort of logical train of thought is required. As I said before with the example where the husband takes his wife to a dinner where her father died, there is a logical and concrete connection between the restaurant and the event that took place. While the feelings there are important, there is still a reasoned connection that makes sense.

Feelings and logic are not entirely mutually exclusive, as one can deduce a train of logical thought to understand why feelings exist. Some feelings are warranted, while others are not. I can deduce why people feel the way they do about this, but it is because they are not using reason when thinking about those feelings. If I lose a loved one, I am feeling that way for a myriad of different reasons. If I dislike a group of people because of gross inaccuracies, preconceived notions, and prejudice, then that is a feeling that lacks significant reasoning.

"Showing empathy", of course, is rather subjective. I believe it is empathetic towards the victims of 9/11 to move on and try to live in coexistence with other cultures and religions rather than attempt tell them that because a mere fraction of a percentage of people who "called" themselves Muslims decided to become violent and kill people we should tell them that they can't build a building in an attempt to show solidarity with the people of New York City and America.



The points I mentioned about Osama Bin Laden's(and by default Al Qaeda) alternate reasons should be pretty relevant here, as it was not merely one given reason by the perpetrators. I'd be interested in hearing your response on that.

Regardless, if you really believe that if a group of people did something along these lines in the name of McDonald's or anything else generic, then I'd like to hear your reasoning specifically on what makes that claim worthwhile enough to encompass the whole of the organization. At that point, I can basically say I'm with anyone or anything, and if I do something bad - *regardless* of whether I am legitimately a part of that organization, or if I even have some inkling of their values/beliefs/policies - then I have done something that actually reflects on them. That doesn't make much sense, and again I'd like to know the reasoning behind what specifically connects the two aside from my simplistic declaration that I'm a part of it.

Even with motivations in mind, I'd still like to know what specifically about motivations that drive people to do bad acts is bad taste if the generic motivation is touched upon elsewhere(in this case, a building representing it). Do people who have a distaste for animal cruelty have a tangible connection if some random guy who believes in the same thing decides to blow up a factory farm? Are all eco organizations to blame when an eco terrorist decides to act? Same motivation! Keep in mind that Islam is so large that it's to be expected that you'll have various groups and subgroups with countless different subsets of beliefs, similar to Christian denominations, so it's a bit of a stretch to label them as a singular group in the first place.

Perhaps more importantly and to the point - Generic motivation still doesn't give us a tangible connection between the terrorists and Islam because it only potentially tells us what their interpretation of Islam is, and no one else's. It also tells us nothing about whether that motivation - even assuming it's tangibly viable within the average Muslim community - is a motivation that would ever be used to endorse violent actions. Judging from the actions of the massive majority of Muslims worldwide who are peaceful, I'd say that's a negatory.

In short - We still have no tangible connection. Generic motivation is as loose a connection as anything else generic about any given small group of people. Whether they wear earrings, tatoos, or like to jump and rub their bellies on random occasions, we'd still need something non-generic that connects with the greater whole to use such a broad brush.

This link references his "critics", which is not the spin I was referencing:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/17/obama.mosque.message/index.html?hpt=C2
But in short, Obama really fucked this thing up from a purely political point-of-view. First, he made the comment that Muslims have the right to practice... etc. If you support this, you're like "hey alright!" IF you don't, you do what the Repubs do: pounce. A lot of Dems felt the issue was settled and really didn't need him stirring the pot.

That's fine. You can then say you respect his position. But, a night or so ago, he backtracked, saying he wasn't commenting on the mosque specifically - basically trying to pull back his support.

At that point, he basically fucked up on all fronts. Now for the Repubs, he is a closet, wishy-washy Muslim support who wants to try to hide his secret intentions. For Dems, he's a pussy that can't stand on principle. Either way, the whole thing is a big disaster for dems heading into this election.

Obama seems to be cleary in over his head and it will be very interesting to see if he can hang on. Harry Reid, once again, is jeopardizing the entire party for his own survival.

I guess I don't get what the confusion is about the Obama thing.

He said everyone should be free to worship as they please, etc etc.

Then later he said he wasn't going to comment on the wisdom of putting the mosque there.

I don't see a disconnect there. I support them putting the mosque there too, but I don't think it was the most well thought out place to put one, either.

I felt like commenting on this specifically. This never happened. He did not backtrack, he did not pull back his support. Every time a media outlet says this, they're preying on peoples' poor comprehension and counting on the ignorance of their own viewer base.

Lol.

And I should point out, I only LOL because it's funny those stupid liberal brown people can't read. You're right, muslims are dum dum dum.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/16/dabashi.mosque.obama/index.html

Of course, I know I am only quoting one link, and it's from that neo-con think tank CNN.

Wait, what? And you link an opinion article? I frankly agree with the president's position on the matter. He took EXACTLY the correct stance for this position - the neutral one. He stated only that they had THE right to build there...not that it was actually RIGHT to do so - and his opinion in that regard (along with everyone else's for that matter) is completely irrelevant to public official discourse.

There's a lot of reasons to shit all over Obama that have a REAL impact on this country (caving in on national healthcare, the Patriot Act, being wishy washy on don't ask, don't tell, etc). Pick one of those, or if you want to shit on the president weighing in on something in truly retarded fashion, how about his comments with regards to that dipshit cop and the professor clown from Georgetown.

This is only in poor taste to those who believe that muslims are responsible for 9/11. That belief is based on ignorance and I would argue that it is our responsibility and duty to stand up against it. Ignorance should be challenged at every opportunity and should never be allowed to take root. Although we can do little to eliminate it we can help to keep it from propagating.

It is disconcerting that so many people are willing to cater to people's ignorance even though they recognize it as exactly that.

The opinion article is by a Muslim liberal. Bovinity's wrote that the media and the right wing are butchering Obama's position. The article is a reflection of the liberal community's opinion. So now liberals are consipiring against Obama? Poor guy. Obama made a stance, saw it wasn't politcally popular and backed off. And now, liberals are calling him out on it. After all, why wouldn't it be WISE to build there? Only a bigot would suggest that, right Bov/Frib/bearne?

It's just another case of Obiden Syndrome. They make stupid public comments and then try to "clarify" when they realize it isn't popular. I think I'd rather have a president who can't pronounce nukular.

I answered you already if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post on why it wasn't an omgbacktrack.

I figured I'd help anyway.

It's also worth noting that I didn't say a word about right wing, left wing, liberal or conservative in my post about this. You felt the need to make that distinction and say things like "conspiring".

Just because this guy is "left wing" or whatever doesn't mean he's exempt from not understanding the point of Obama's statements. (Despite the fact that it's pretty painfully obvious.)

Best summation I've heard yet:

_________________

From an article on a protest in Manhattan against the community center / mosque:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinion ... ?page=all#



and



Which side is exhibiting poor taste again? Really? The idea that this is a "taste" issue totally decoupled from religious bigotry and Otherization just really doesn't fly. This is the same formula that lets people's brain waves go from brown -> Mexican -> illegal in 0.2 seconds.

On the plus side, it seems like various types of brown people are this summer scapegoats, making it slightly easier to be GLBT for once.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Just be careful with your tan.

So the few dozen extremist protestors at the construction site "speak" for the massive populace that thinks it's in poor taste. I'm hoping I don't need to explain the irony.

I would hope not. I'd say the massive populace that thinks it's in poor taste are speaking well enough for themselves at this point. Such indignation masked behind a veil of concern (which is probably real, just not relevant) for something a few creative nutjobs did a decade ago.

The brown people aren't coming to get you. Seriously.

People who missed the point +1.

Correct, it's more of a funny anecdote than an accurate representation of the whole. It wouldn't be surprising if it were more representative of the whole, but we don't have enough data to say and thus cannot make judgements nor... /drumroll... have that bias against them. That doesn't change anything about the fact that no legitimate correlative reasoning has been given. Especially since you've told us we can now make any claim we want to in order to be a "part" to any group, regardless of the percentage of representation, and regardless of the correlation between ourselves and the group the group still takes enough association with it to warrant a question of taste when their name arises again.

The real irony is that you're trying to claim bias but continuing to stick to your guns with the taste/motivation schtick without backing it up. I'm a big fan of looking inward to stave off my own biases and inconsistencies before pointing the finger at others, but perhaps that's just me.

Yeah, I'm following you now. You were being clever or something I'm sure.

Drajeck, this is a situation where you CAN'T have it both ways. Holding the Muslims accountable for their extremists while at the same time not holding christians accountable for theirs? Double standard.

But it goes beyond that and I think is something on a persecuted minority "gets".

Take this video for example:



From a cheesy new ABC show where they try to find out what americans will do when presented with certain situations. In this one, what happens when someone openly and actively discriminates against a muslim woman. I'm not going to get into the cheese factor of the show, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the numbers:

13 people stood up and spoke in favor of the woman.
6 spoke out in favor of the discriminatory comments.

22 remained silent.

Now, to the average american, I'm sure this looks like "Oh, half the number of people were jackasses compared to who spoke out in their defense...why is this such a big deal, it is a small number of people." The actual number you need to look at is the 22 that remained silent.

It's not an accident that the gay activists in the height of the AIDS epidemic coined the phrase "silence = death". To an american muslim woman like the one they based their experiment on, a woman who has been physically attacked, that 22 HAS to be counted as being part of the 6, not the 13. It isn't safe for her to assume that their silence is just in her favor and she can count on them to be sane. So then, herds of people start to look really unfriendly and the only way she can know for sure, is if they DO speak out in favor of her.

It's disgusting that an AMERICAN citizen can't walk alone at night for fear of attack. Absolutely disgusts me. Fuck, all you have to do is scroll back through this thread to see Kaedian advocating blowing up a church full of american citizens using grief as the justification. Seriously? Somehow the fact that a terrorist organization killed someone you cared for, you can justify bombing YOUR OWN FELLOW CITIZENS?

So yeah. 13 spoke out in favor. 22+6 either advocated/approved the discrimination or let it happen. And that is a sad state of affairs for the "land of the free". I just don't think most people think about what that silence actually means to the people being targeted. What it HAS to mean.

Time and again, I'm told I can't hold christians accountable for Fred Phelps. And I don't. Time to man the fuck up and practice what you preach, folks. Muslims != terrorist. That or I want to start hearing what you're doing to reign in your own extremists on a daily basis.

_________________

I just want to point out the irony of Venen's outrage. Apparently it's ok to detain and hold indefinitely, and even torture, brown people, but its not ok to protest their right to build a church. You really know where to draw the line!

I'm not touching this debate with a 10' poll. It's cut and dry. This is still America. If you go through the right process to build a thing, it's your right to build whatever you want so long as it conforms to whatever local ordnances and laws exist.

However, for the record, I love living in America. I am grateful almost every single day of my life that I was born here instead of literally anywhere else on Earth.

I'm curious where the irony is between detaining and torturing under extremely specific circumstances and associating a small percentage of a group with a massively greater whole. Two very different subjects, and I would never make a racial distinction with regard to the former(mostly because it's unnecessary, especially in a specific situation where you have specific evidence that a bomb is about to go off. Color of skin can't really play a role in that unless multiple people cross-confirm that "it was a black guy" or some such, and even then under the scenario I outlined more evidence would be required beyond appearances).

Given the specifics I outlined in that thread a while back and your lack of response to most of them, I'd say drawing lines of any kind isn't really your forte =) At least you can have some comfort in the fact that you spew out a few good one-liner platitudes once in a while. I'd never be the first to ask you for any advice on moral or philosophical distinctions, though, I'm afraid.

Would it help those of you who so vehemently object to this cultural center to know that the Imam is Sufi? If it doesn't help you, do you even know what that means?

Oh nevermind, it was already brought up and ignored in this thread.

It...it means terrorist, right? Right?

I agree with that, but I am not holding Muslims accountable for extremists. You also can't have it both ways and using extremist (and reprehensible) protestors to support your argument is approaching that line. My position is (and has been):
1. It is, and always should be, their legal right to build a mosque anywhere
2. The vast majority of Muslims (99.999%) are not terrorists and should not be treated as such
3. Building a mosque at ground zero is poor judgment and taste
4. Believing #3 does not mean you hate Muslims or blame them for 9/11

I have tried to explain how believing #2 and #3 can coexist, but I think that is where the disconnect is here. People posting here are asking for an explanation of how that is possible, I have given the explanation and then it is said that it is not a valid explanation so it is still not possible for the above list to all be true. The result is an endless loop of neither side making any progress so I don't see any point in continuing it (not that I am opposed to continuing the discussion, I just don’t know that I can add anything new or relevant any longer). Regardless if you believe my position is validated though, I can tell you truthfully that I believe all 4 of the above points and even if you don't understand how they can coexist, in my mind (and I believe many Americans) they do not contradict each other. It is possible to not hate Muslims, not blame them for 9/11 and still not want a mosque built on ground zero all the while understanding it should be their legal right to do so anyway.

The problem with your explanation is that you are basically saying Rosa Parks exercised poor judgment and taste because she offended some people.

yep.

I'm not saying that at all. I also don't feel the need to defend myself from something I never claimed (and you incorrectly assumed). You're over simplifing my position to make yourself feel better about discarding it as worthless.

Nah. The only mistake they made was underestimating the capacity of people to be stupid and hateful.

No. The opposite, you dumbshit.

[ ] Joxur is good at recognizing sarcasm.

Interesting article on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38819775/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

Some excerpts:







All quotes from middle eastern muslims. I added the bold.

They may all be quotes from Middle Eastern Muslims but as usual the article treats all Muslims as identical. It's kind of like asking Catholics if they agree with what an Assembly of God (or whatever liberal protestant denomination you please) church is doing and treating the answer like it matters, as if the Catholic Church should somehow speak for all Christians.

As a point of instruction: Sufis are not even considered Muslims within parts of the Muslim world. They are the whirling dervish, peace-loving Muslims who you often hear about being bombed by Al Qaeda & the Taliban in Pakistan.

Whatever happened to the phliosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

The article illustrates that it is indeed possible to think the Mosque is a bad idea and not hate or blame Muslims for 9/11. All the posters here claiming one is not possible without the other can hopefully reevaluate their position. That is all I have said and all I hope to convey. I am not looking to change anyone’s stance on whether they should or should not build a mosque, just hoping to open some minds that there are legitimate concerns for both sides that don’t involve hate or blame.

I have yet to see any argument from any opponent of the cultural center that, for me, trumps the fact that a peaceful group of Muslims want to build an outreach center where doing so may best attract the attention/interest of the people who are most likely to see all Muslims as terrorists. That goal is not trumped by making a few people feel uncomfortable. Discomfort will hopefully lead them to visit the center and learn something.

Apparently building in Brooklyn is in bad taste.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Hezbollah is demonstrating more religious tolerance than the religious bigotry against Muslims going on right now in the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... OWKEnqxKdU

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Distasteful means highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust. It is not Synonymous with "bad idea". Maybe I have misunderstood Drajeck because we are discussing two different things. Whether or not the mosque is a bad idea is a completely separate debate than whether or not it is offensive and the reasoning behind that belief.

None of those quotes say that the mosque is a bad idea, that it shouldn't be built for one reason or another, that muslims shouldn't be close to the WTC site, etc.

It's also pretty sad that there have been at least two cases where the crowd of protesters turned on random people for - basically - not being white enough.

I'm sure they're not all racists, but it sure doesn't make them look good.

Yeah, the videos of mosque protesters that have been turning really ugly towards people they suddenly perceive as possibly being muslim have been really....illuminating.

_________________

Indeed. For a country that has so much less prejudice than everyone else, we sure have an interesting way of showing it.

"Pastor says armed militia to protect church during Quran-burning event"

What could possibly go wrong? I mean, its not like Muslim cabbies are getting stabbed in NYC, or anything. Or black men wearing Under Armour skullcaps are getting threatened with violence at Ground Zero by angry mobs for "looking Muslim."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Wow, so apparently the Quran-burning people are too crazy even for an armed militia called "Right Wing Extreme." They've pulled their support.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I'm so glad my wife and I just live in our own little quiet corner of the world, far removed from all these crazies and their craziness. =)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/AntiMuslim_attacker_works_at_proPark51_group.html

omg, he's a sleeper agent!!!

And now the construction site of a previously-protested mosque in Tennessee has been burned down, and the fire has been ruled arson.

I'm sure it was just too close to 9/11. Or the arsonists were volunteers at Muslims'R'Okay.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

*er, too close to Ground Zero.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Jeez..

They don't realize the damage they're doing to the national image as a whole, I guess.

Every time someone like Bin laden tries to get recruits by talking about the "Western War on Islam", it's events like these ones of late that give him the ammunition. =(

Not to mention that it's just plain embarassing. This isn't who we are and what we stand for. We should all be speaking out against this sort of behaviour.

People who believe Muslim = Terrorist don't care what Muslims think of them.

Yeah. =(

Again with the irony.